Meh, I'm no huge fan of Ron Paul, but I don't see how he could be the worst. I'd be willing sacrifice a lot if meant not killing people in other countries. That should be the basis of any civilized society.

That said, I'm not sure I'd trust Ron Paul to live up to his vague statements about foreign policy if actually in office.

1/17/2008 11:43:44 AM

Quote :

"I'd like to point out that your collective response to everything I've posted is either "hurr source" or "I agree with this." Which actually is pretty telling about your political intelligence. Also, roids. Good burn."

Asking for sources when you make a claim and link to an article that has nothing to do with your claim is perfectly legitimate. I'm also asking because if it is true, I want to know through verifiable sources beyond "because SandSanta said so".

And no, I haven't replied with "I agree with this" to anything you've posted. Because you haven't even given talking points to agree with. You just post incorrectly framed assumptions based on voting records. If you want to troll me, be my guest, but either move it to Chit Chat, or just blast me in PMs. I promise I will read them all and feel totally belittled and inferior to you but the soap box is supposed to be for debate and discussion.

If you don't think I or others understand your point, you might try to frame it a different way or provide some other tact to get it across, beyond "I dont know how to communicate so I'll just make fun of you"

1/17/2008 11:53:01 AM

He has that crucial White Supremacist support. Maybe he IS ok afterall.

1/17/2008 11:53:11 AM

At the same time, he suggests he'll kill fewer non-whites while in office.

1/17/2008 11:56:19 AM

What about black panthers supporting Obama? If I supported Obama, who the black panthers supported wouldn't influence my decision.

1/17/2008 12:01:27 PM

Uh, are the Black Panthers black supremacists?

1/17/2008 12:05:41 PM

Quote :

"That said, I'm not sure I'd trust Ron Paul to live up to his vague statements about foreign policy if actually in office."

Have you seen/read any of his stuff from the early 80's, or his LP Presidential run in '88?

He's been saying the same thing for 30 years, even with the same wording, and many times at his own expense. If that can't be trusted, I don't know what can.

1/17/2008 12:07:09 PM

Quote :

"He's been saying the same thing for 30 years, even with the same wording, and many times at his own expense. If that can't be trusted, I don't know what can."

I'm not that familiar his history, no. His website's foreign policy statement certainly didn't impress me. In any case, even George Bush said he didn't think we should interfere in other countries. Who knows what any of them will do when actually in power?

1/17/2008 12:10:35 PM

Quote :

"He has that crucial White Supremacist support. Maybe he IS ok afterall."

As I've already said, someone's supporters do not dictate one's positions.

He's supported the end to the federal death penalty because of its inequality toward minorities. He's supported equal sentencing for crack convictions as to cocaine.
He's supported true equal rights in most of his legislative decisions (aka no government involvement)

1/17/2008 12:14:33 PM

^^Ron Paul was actually asked about that. Considering Bush's words in 2000 were at least a little similar to Paul's policies, did he vote for him?

Paul said no, and that he saw through the fake conservatism a mile away.

Trying to find some stuff online...but the best would be to read his "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" which is a 400-page collection of House speeches and articles all making this point in various situations over his time in Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew&NR=1 - that's an interview during his 1988 Presidential run.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul26.html - that's him in 2002.

And his foreign policy, despite his current claims to the contrary, are not at all like Bush's in 2000. Bush didn't advocate non-interventionism - he argued for intervention in much fewer cases.

The test for non-interventionism: if you would bring home troops from Korea, Germany, Japan, etc.

If you leave them there, it means you are open to considering foreign interventionism. If not, then you can be trusted, IMHO.

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM. Reason : a]

1/17/2008 12:36:01 PM

If you bring troops out of Korea and Japan you not only void treaties that have been in place since WW2 you also open SE Asia up to 3 new countries OPENLY developing nuclear weapons (S. Korea, Japan, Australia).


So yes, that is a shitty idea.

1/17/2008 12:40:15 PM

We're not arguing whether it's a shitty idea, shithead.

We are discussing whether his commitment can be trusted any more than Bush's commitment in 2000.

1/17/2008 12:41:08 PM

So his commitment to idiocy versus reality?


I think it's very reasonable to talk about the results of him 'sticking to his guns like a texas cowboy.'

1/17/2008 12:43:46 PM

Does Switzerland care if S. Korea, Japan or Australia have the bomb? No, they don't. Why? Because, without any overstament, armed-to-the-teeth neutrality makes you nearly invincible.

If it's so dumb, how 'bout we just keep tellin the Swiss: "Hey, we just don't care that you've had 500 years of nearly uninterrupted peace, in a region constantly filled with upheaval, revolution, war, madmen, royal squabbles and other dumb and bloody wars. It's just not that impressive. And you're idiots for thinking that is in your own interest."

That'll be my last post on that in this thread. Otherwise, bttt.

1/17/2008 12:50:06 PM

For what it's worth, every candidate who is not an atheist and is part of one of the common religions is a creationist.

1/17/2008 1:03:01 PM

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: If you bring troops out of Korea and Japan you not only void treaties that have been in place since WW2 you also open SE Asia up to 3 new countries OPENLY developing nuclear weapons (S. Korea, Japan, Australia)."

Your ignorance both of history and the region is very, very obvious right now. Stop now before you make a bigger ass of yourself.

1/17/2008 1:10:39 PM

Prove me wrong. Australia has publicly stated that they would develop nuclear weapons if Japan went nuclear.

Ministers within Japan have stated several times that it would take less than a year to develop a nuclear bomb if they chose to do so. One of the things preventing them from doing so is having an American force there to protect them.

It is also extremely hard to imagine S. Korea not becoming a nuclear power if Japan does, and even harder considering the issues going on with the north.

1/17/2008 1:26:37 PM

Japan has had a long-standing anti-nuclear sentiment, as has formally forsworn nuclear weapons since the 1960's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%27s_non-nuclear_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Non-Nuclear_Principles

Given widespread opposition to nuclear weapons even being stationed near Japanese soil (there was a wide public outcry in an incident where was revealed that U.S. nuclear-armed submarines had docked at a Japanese port), the notion that Japan will go nuclear anytime soon is extremely unlikely. Further, whenever a Japanese politician has gone so far as to question Japan's nuclear policy, they have been subject to vast public scorn - so much that one minister (Shingo Nishimura) who did so had to resign in 1999.

Even though Japan's technical infrastructure and knowledge of nuclear engineering make it feasible for it to easily construct a weapon, public opinion there is vastly against it, and does not appear to be significantly shifting.

Australia, on the other hand, only came close to nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's, when they attempted to purchase them from the British, and in the 70's, when they proposed building a plutonium stockpile - a program whose funding was later cut in the 80's. They have no nuclear infrastructure - no reactors. They have uranium mining and one test reactor, but nothing on the scale that would easily permit them to pursue a proliferation policy. Further, Australia, unlike Japan, is probably even more anti-nuclear - they don't even like nuclear power - much less nuclear weapons.

http://www.nautilus.org/~rmit/forum-reports/0623a-broinowski.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_Weapons

Could Australia build a bomb if they tried? Probably - but it would take a lot longer, and they'd be pushing against a very anti-nuclear populace.

Further, all three countries are members of the NPT. For them to develop nuclear weapons, it is at least highly likely, as non-rogue nations, that they would first have to withdraw from the NPT. That alone would cause a stir.

1/17/2008 1:48:17 PM

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd65/65nr07.htm

A minister of Japan hinted towards the fact that Japan may one day develop weapons then backs off the statement.


What's so neat about this article? The minister that suggested the policy change may occur is now the Prime Minister.


Don't get me wrong, it would take a major change in the area for the weapons to be developed, but the US pulling out of Japan is major enough to make the Japanese people want to defend themselves.


I am very familiar with Japanese politics and policy stances as well as public perception of nuclear weapons. I lived there for a time, studied at school there in their law department, and studied Japan in depth at NCSU as well. My information comes from speaking with people, intelligentsia, and first hand research, not wikipedia.

1/17/2008 1:59:04 PM

So does mine. I just like using sources, since people tend to yell "bullshit!" when one doesn't.

The first and far most likely consequence of a security shift by the United States would be a re-evaluation of Article 9 (renunciation of offensive war) - something which has far more mainstream discussion than nuclear weapons.

Abe flirted with the idea of exploring nuclear weapons in his statement, but it's very clear that barring a seismic shift in Japanese public opinion, there's no way he ever get away with making a serious recommendation begin exploration of nuclear weapons acquisition. It's a third rail in Japanese politics - kind of like any discussion of cutting Social Security benefits is here.

1/17/2008 2:04:03 PM

Quote :

" He's supported the end to the federal death penalty because of its inequality toward minorities. He's supported equal sentencing for crack convictions as to cocaine. He's supported true equal rights in most of his legislative decisions (aka no government involvement) "

And yet he hasn't outright denounced StormFront or the fact that they consider him the most ideal candidate or their (small) contribution to his campaign.

I mean its really pointless because he's not electable. We all know I'm trolling you guys because like all RP supporters, none of you really thought his positions through until now. Your odd justifications for them are evidence enough.

1/17/2008 2:30:36 PM

Ron Paul is an attractive politician in the fact that he stands by his ideals. Despite this fact he is ideals are not attractive (to me) very much at all. It's hard not to admire him for standing up for what he believes though.


However, that will most certainly not translate into a vote for him, ever.

1/17/2008 2:35:30 PM

Quote :

"And yet he hasn't outright denounced StormFront or the fact that they consider him the most ideal candidate or their (small) contribution to his campaign."

I don't suppose the thought has ever crossed your mind of not giving them any more free publicity?

I mean, really. These kinds of guys live off public condemnation. Why advertise when all you have to do is start a controversy and the media and politicians will do all your advertising for you?

No, it must be... Ron Paul is a racist. The only logical conclusion.

1/17/2008 2:38:13 PM

Quote :

"I'm no huge fan of Ron Paul, but I don't see how he could be the worst. I'd be willing sacrifice a lot if meant not killing people in other countries. That should be the basis of any civilized society."

1/17/2008 2:53:03 PM

Edwards
Obama

1/17/2008 3:22:24 PM

Quote :

"I don't suppose the thought has ever crossed your mind of not giving them any more free publicity?"

I don't invent stories for people so they fit my ideals. I define my opinions through actions and events I observe, not intentions that I can't verify.

1/17/2008 3:26:26 PM

While conveniently admitting only the logical conclusions that admit your own worldview, or denigrate those of your opponents.

Yes, we all see how open-minded and rational you are!

1/17/2008 3:35:06 PM

McCain
Paul

and I think i could tolerate Obama

1/17/2008 3:50:43 PM

Paul

Hope for America
Stop the globalist!

1/17/2008 4:09:10 PM

Huckabee wants God in the Constitution
Romney wants whatever you want him to want at the moment you want him to want it
McCain wants people to just get off his goddamn back and vote for him, goddammit!
Paul wants to disengage from the world because the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the U.S. to be a superpower
Giuliani wants people to forget he looks like Simon Bar Sinister
Thompson wants to be President but doesn't to want to campaign

Clinton wants nothing but power
Obama wants change (as yet unspecified)
Edwards wants to run the few remaining corportations out of the country
and all three intend to tax the fuck out the middle class in the process

1/17/2008 5:12:14 PM

Quote :

"And yet he hasn't outright denounced StormFront or the fact that they consider him the most ideal candidate or their (small) contribution to his campaign."

You mean like when he publicly denounced them here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c
or here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI (question comes at 3:20)
or maybe here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYrwK35nZW8

Or maybe the retraction by the New York Times in saying not only did Stormfront not actually donate to the campaign, but Paul had never even met the group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiV0vrjt1ZM

Dude, quit being stupid. He's publicly denounced racist groups so many times it's common knowledge (except, apparently, to you who sticks their head in the sand at any moment they see fit)

1/17/2008 5:25:35 PM

Well pre-emptive strike has been a tradition of the United States and it is certainly implied that Bush has donea horribly unamerican thing.

It was certainly a knee-jerk reaction that we shoulnt necessarily have done.

I agree with the guy that said that these lists dno't make sense politically or value wise....but that just demonstrates the importance of personality in elections.

Why the hate for Clinton? i.e. the comment about how she wants power (why does she "want power" anymore than any of these other candidates. Generally, it seems that people that don't support Hillary truly have this hatred for her that is extremely unwarranted. I think she has some pretty bad ideas, but why is she such a polarizing figure? There isnt another candidate that even remotely brings about these types of feelings from everyone.

1/18/2008 3:03:51 AM

Quote :

"Clinton wants nothing but power Obama wants change (as yet unspecified) Edwards wants to run the few remaining corportations out of the country and all three intend to tax the fuck out the middle class in the process"

If by middle class you mean fund initiatives by rolling back to Bush tax cuts to the very wealthy, and getting us out of iraq so we aren't pouring tons of money into it any more.

1/18/2008 6:43:33 AM

I heard Ron Paul wants to round up Jews and Gypsies and put them in concentration camps.

1/18/2008 7:53:46 AM

I HEARD RON PAUL EATS BABIES AND WORSHIPS THE FROG KING!






but nah

this thread is entertaining

please continue

Quote :

"for each name below, ask yourself, "Do I approve of __________ as the next president?" biden bloomberg brownback clinton dodd edwards giuliani gore gravel huckabee kerry kucinich mccain obama paul richardson romney schwarzenegger tancredo thompson and post the names of those you approve of (if you approve of none, post "none")"

1/18/2008 9:25:28 AM